An Open Letter about the Global Crisis of Civil Society since 2020

An Open Letter about the Global Crisis of Civil Society since 2020

Darin Stephanov, Ph.D. (historian, Harvard)
Bistra Strechkova, microbiologist (formerly with Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Dear friends, colleagues, and acquaintances we have crossed paths with at some point in life:

My wife Bistra and I hereby commence this long and difficult letter to you, which we consider our civic duty. We wish to share our reflections about various aspects of last year’s (and ongoing) crisis, as well as to express some well-justified misgivings about the future on the basis of all that has come to pass over the course of the past year and to this day. We will be much indebted to you, if you can find the time and peace of mind to read through to the end.

As you know, officially it all began in China at the beginning of 2020. Chinese scientists were the first to study the fluid from the lungs of several patients, ascertain the presence of a coronavirus (after rejecting the possibility of a bacterial agent due to the lack of effect of antibiotics) and introduce a total socioeconomic lockdown. Well, we have had viruses before, such as West Nile, SARS, MERS, avian, swine and so on, on average once every few years since 2001.

The last measure, however, is unprecedented in world history. OK, we can say this is how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does business. For example, they lock up millions of Uighurs in education camps in Xinjiang for an unspecified period of time, without outside contact. A similar fate, except labor camps, has befallen about 500,000 Tibetans a month or so ago. Allegedly, in the middle of the last century, the CCP used to employ human chains of tens of thousands of people passing along reed baskets full of dirt, hand by hand, while digging up dams. CCP is as CCP does, BUT

For reasons unknown, the entire protocol for fighting the coronavirus was then suddenly exported with no reservations, discussions, criticism or alterations whatsoever to almost all of the rest of the world. When did we last trust the CCP so much and about what else? Never. About nothing. The wave of lockdowns, officially for three weeks to “flatten the curve” rolled throughout the western countries (except Sweden) like a wave of falling dominoes. Next, the startled politicians delegated all power to the experts. Let’s take the example of one major expert – Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, who, not for the first time, pulled out a horrific forecast for hundreds of thousands of (in this case, coronavirus) dead in the UK and millions in the US, should a lockdown not be implemented. Of course, it turned out to be totally wrong, as had been the case many times before, but yet again no one called him to task. He just started keeping a lower profile at SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) since May 2020 due to breaking the curfew to receive his illicit lover.

Thereafter, we all got new words and unprecedented measures, which changed our realities, such as “new normal”, “social distancing”, “superspreader”, “elbow greeting”, “contact tracing”, “self-isolation,” and on and on. Besides lockdowns, we have never had:

• medical martial law
• checkpoints
• mass testing
• mass quarantines
• mass contact tracing
• curfews
• asymptomatic sick people
• mask wearing, not to mention mandatory
• the introduction of mandatory vaccines in many countries (often indirectly, seemingly voluntary, but with multiple social mechanisms of coercion), strong pressure for the rest (more on the subject below)
• a limit on the permitted distance from one’s home (5 km. in Australia)
• a daily personal limit on the time spent outdoors (1 hour in the UK)
• mandatory test results on arrival from abroad (Greece, New Zealand and many others)
• isolation/quarantine camps in various stages of planning/execution in New Zealand, Canada, USA (NY Senate Bill 416), Germany (?!!), etc.

and so on.

Let’s work our way from the periphery to the core of the matter. I (Darin) happen to specialize in microhistory so I tend to pay more attention to words and their context than most people. “Lockdown” is a prison term. The measure goes into effect during a prisoner escape. “Quarantine” has previously been enforced only upon a well-founded suspicion for the presence of an infectious disease or on arrival from a risky region, and not indiscriminately, on predominantly healthy people. “Social distancing” is an oxymoron (a combination of contradictory words). I recently read that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, would give Germans “amnesty” from the lockdown for Christmas. No comment. One can clearly detect elements of Orwellian doublespeak. George Orwell’s book “1984” (1948) and Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World” (1932) have been tremendously helpful, like guide books to life over the past year and on to this day.

Hmm, is it possible to find doublespeak elsewhere as well? For example, the authorities saying they are “saving lives”, when they are doing exactly the opposite? It is not only possible, but predictable, realistic and readily provable. It is just that you are not going to hear about it on corporate media. After many months of locking down the people and the economy and barring access to hospitals for all except COVID patients, now we can calculate the number of the chronically sick (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.), who are dying at home due to a prolonged lack of regular medical care. Let’s add the number of suicides (there is a proven direct proportionality between the percentage of unemployment and the number of suicides), as well as the victims of chronic alcoholism, domestic violence, mental disease and so on.

But why limit ourselves only to other types of victims when there are effective ways of swelling the numbers of COVID sick and deceased themselves? For example, we could gradually increase the number of COVID symptoms shared by a number of other diseases, with none unique to the new disease. In this way, we can reclassify ordinary flu and pneumonia as COVID. According to the official statistics, in one of Canada’s provinces last year there were 6 (?!!) cases of flu. When an independent journalist (Jeff Berwick) reflected this little known fact in his report, the number on the respective webpage was changed to “negligibly few.” There are other ways as well. Here is an example from the US first announced by Dr. Scott Jensen, a state senator from Minnesota. For a diagnosis of ordinary pneumonia, hospitals receive 4,000 $, for COVID – 13,000 $, for intubation – 39,000 $.

Another widespread method involves the writing of death certificates. For example, we ignore completely all types of comorbidity and every deceased WITH COVID we put down as deceased FROM COVID. In Italy, which, at the beginning, so scared the rest of the world with its high mortality, the health minister admitted already back in April 2020 the “liberal” counting of COVID victims who have died with 1, 2, 3 or more other conditions. With all comorbidities accounted for, the final number amounts to only 2% of the original number. In the US, doctors were given new instructions on the writing of death certificates. In passing, we could mention the multiple documented cases of superimposition of COVID on suicides, deaths from gunshot wounds, car and other accidents, according to relatives.

Thus we arrive at the root of the problem with COVID. According to their inventor himself – Cary Mullis, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for 1993 – the RT-PCR tests are NOT FIT FOR DIAGNOSING infectious diseases or measuring a viral load. (if this or other hyperlinks do not work, read on to find out why). Their main and proper use is in science or criminology when one has a limited quantity of genetic material and wishes to multiply it in order to be able to study it. Moreover, there is no common standard and each lab has its own protocol for cycles of multiplication. It seems that, above 35 cycles, just about every test gives a positive result. And these are “the most precise” tests! The “rapid” tests are not even worthy of our attention here.

Even billionaire Elon Musk, who is involved in vaccine development himself (the German company Curevac), recently shared that out of 4 tests he took simultaneously under identical circumstances, 2 came out positive and 2 negative. As a matter of fact, this is not a test in the true sense of the word, but a technique for quick and cheap multiplication of genetic material. If a person has ever had flu or has taken a flu vaccine recently, there is a good chance they may get a positive result. According to Dr. Mullis, who, sadly, passed away in August 2020, the PCR tests only confirm the Buddhist adage that “everything is contained in everything else.” In short, for the above-mentioned reasons, there is no way for us to know, based on these tests, how many people are sick or are dying and from what exactly. What is even worse is that the system is entirely open to all kinds of potential manipulation in the direction of production or not of numbers and “clusters” of the disease at all times (for example, before and/or after the administration of a COVID vaccine).

Let’s take a step back.

My (Darin’s) late father used to emphasize the importance of independent free thinking since my early childhood (“A majority does not by default imply truthfulness.”) Today this point is more important than ever. Something else he used to stress, blessed be his soul, long before the beginning of the internet and the explosion of media, was the vital significance of varied and reliable information flows for the proper functioning of just such thinking.

A while ago, I came across a statement by an American anthropologist, the name escapes me at the moment, according to whom the split and divergence between reality as portrayed by the media and reality proper had begun already in the 1960s. I suppose an element such as this has always existed. Those who remember the socialist period in Eastern Europe firsthand know how one used to read “between the lines” the official newspapers. But who could have predicted that since the inception of the “transitional period”, this process would only become faster and more complicated? Everywhere. After decades of taking both electoral campaigns/politics as a whole and the leading corporate media’s news broadcasts to a lower and lower common denominator, the two realities are now jarringly, unrecognizably different. Just think of the movie “They Live (1988).”

Numbers are also helpful. In the US, 90% of the TV market is controlled by 5 mega corporations. In Germany, 98% of the printed popular periodical press is controlled by 5 owners. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that investigative journalism, “the fourth power” is no longer welcome on mainstream TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc., all of which act more and more like propaganda branches of certain coalescing corporate, state and/or transnational interests. Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.” What better example than the mass projected monovision of the corona crisis? Have you noticed any layers of meaning, contention, a striving for an open discussion, or toleration for a divergence in viewpoints?

No. Differences, if acknowledged at all, are instantly castigated. Eamonn Holmes, an ITV (UK) host was forced to issue a public apology and almost lost his job for the mere question whether the “other” opinion should be given the floor. If someone expresses a point which does not toe “the party line” via Zoom or skype, the connection tends to mysteriously disappear (we are aware of at least two such instances – in the US and our native Bulgaria). What we do get is the automatic disqualification of alternative viewpoints with the alarming tendency towards their criminalization. Keywords: “fake news”, “conspiracy theories,” “Russian hackers”, “far right” and so on. How many of you know that the term “conspiracy theory” was coined by the CIA for the purpose of prompt discrediting of alternative versions of the assassination of JFK? Of course, we all know what a simple, unambiguous event that was, like an open book . . .

Here is a list of the main tactics employed in debunking “conspiracy theories” on corporate media:

1)     Complete silence on all points of the argument; the word “conspiracy” removes any need for a one-sided commentary, much less a two-sided discussion.

2)     Isolation of a point of the argument from its natural context, followed by its blow-up, out of all proportion, and its subsequent presentation as THE entire original argument, which can only invite ridicule. Example: “5G causes COVID.”

3)     Direct character-assassination of the “conspiracy theorist” once more without the slightest need whatsoever to address their actual argument.

4)     Indirect character-assassination of the “conspiracy theorist” by way of a spurious insertion of a random imaginary connection between their argument and obvious hoaxes such as that “Elvis is still alive or that the Moon landing was shot in a Hollywood studio.” Example of victim: Talkradio host Julia Hartley-Brewer in response to her questions to Chris Hopson, UK’s National Health Services (NHS) Providers Chief Executive in Jan. 2021.

5)     Tendentious discussion of the imaginary motives of the “conspirators.” Example (a paraphrase of the words of an English radio host): “The anti-vaxxers in the UK know that their statements can hurt people’s health. Why do they make them then?”

What is self-evident? At no point is the original argument faithfully presented in its entirety or discussed on its own terms. Never is the floor given to alternatively thinking people. Why? Should it not be easy to refute them since “Science” is on our side?

Instead of a two-sided discussion on a level playing field, we get censorship – 1) by way of what is said/shown or not, and 2) by way of what is taken off air. Speaking of 1), how many of you know about the large anti-lockdown protests in Berlin at the beginning and the end of August 2020? Based on drone pictures of the dense crowds in the heart of Germany’s capital, fair estimates range in the ball park of 1 million people. What number did the mass media give us? 18,000. Speaking of 2), an ever accelerating purge of “otherness” is in full swing on platforms and social networks such as youtube, facebook, twitter, linkedin, vimeo . . .

Needless to say, for the good of the people. Actually, it had commenced little by little already several years ago, but picked up speed with the corona crisis, under the unassailable pretext of, what else, the health of the people. The culmination thus far came on October 15, 2020 in connection to the upcoming US presidential elections. Inconvenient videos, lectures, even scientific articles or statements which are at variance with the commonly accepted (commonly imposed?) narrative tend to disappear fast. Without prior warning, explanation, or right of appeal. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the digital Library of Alexandria is on fire. By the looks of it, the private webpages of independent journalists and all manner of free thinking folk will be next.

By the way, most official “fact checkers” of alternative viewpoints tend to be sponsored by the same people who are the object of criticism in the first place. The same goes for more mainstream journalism than you can imagine. As a Bulgarian proverb goes: “The thief cries out – “Catch the thief!”” Understandably, James Corbett, an independent journalist, asked the question: “Who will check the fact checkers?” That is why Richard Grove, another freelance journalist, recently started a joint project of about 40 truly independent fact checkers.

What recently came to light was the coordination of censorship between Facebook, Google, and Тwitter, during a senatorial questioning of Mark Zuckerberg. To those who still hold on to an idealistic image of the role of Google and who may not be aware of Google’s, as well as Facebook’s connections to the military industrial complex, from their very foundation, we recommend the excellent documentary „The Creepy Line (2018).” In it, among other things, you can discover curious little facts about the algorithms and filters for Google keyword searches (just try the same keyword search with different browsers and search engines, and see what you get), as well as about the dark side of social networks in general. It may be good for gmail account holders to keep in mind that everything (including drafts and deleted emails) gets recorded and kept by Google.

If all had been well with the mass media, the message in a situation like this would have been something like: “Let’s calm down the people. We have a problem, but we will pull through together.” Instead, we all witnessed a relentless global campaign of fear porn. In the US, there are people who have not left their houses since March 2020.

Which is one of dominant factors for a weakened immune system? Stress as a whole and fear in particular. Another key factor in this respect? Staying at home under lockdown (house arrest?). What did months (almost a year) of draconian measures accomplish in the fight against COVID? On the contrary, things got worse. Despite this, the already severe restrictions keep getting tighter all the time . . . After the COVID psychosis was maintained over the summer thanks to the PCR tests, now we find ourselves in the midst of the winter flu season so there is a good chance things will only deteriorate until the spring. A downhill for COVID operators.

The virus is not isolated and purified. Instead of a black-and-white photo, all we get its ubiquitous colored CGI version (it is more frightening). None of the four postulates (video taken down by youtube, “mirrored” up again) of Robert Koch, one of virology’s founders, has been fulfilled for COVID so we have no golden standard for the tests. However, we have “experts” who can connect the virus to erectile dysfunction or depression, a sense of imaginary smells, or even can tell us what people sick with COVID see at the moment of death . . . ?!! We seem to have entered a dark age of superstition, obscurantism, and witch hunting. We seem to have gone back 1,000 years.

The whole thing looks more and more like a Covidian cult, which exacts from its members, all of us, complete unquestioning obedience in the execution of absurd, alogical, unscientific directives. Let’s mention quickly the masks – an unprecedented measure in our lifetimes – backed up by no compelling scientific investigation whatsoever. On the contrary, there are many and convincing scientific studies and depositions about the neurological harm caused by them even to healthy individuals, as well as a plethora of practical video demonstrations of their utter ineffectiveness (video taken down by youtube, refugee shelter at bitchute) in stopping aerosols in either direction (all except gas masks). Moreover, there are credible scientific studies about the harm, on psychological basis alone, done to patients cared for by a doctor wearing a mask compared to patients cared for by a doctor not wearing a mask. Recently, we read about a study showing that 85% of the COVID sick had worn correctly and consistently their masks. So what? The people should do as they are told, and that’s it … And when they may wish not to harm themselves, they will be fined and even arrested.

Thus, we get to the vaccines. The argument constructs itself. Suffice to point out a few facts and make a list of the unprecedented steps.

Facts:

1)     The average period for vaccine development prior to COVID = 20 years.

2)     The shortest period ever for the same (most conservative estimate) = 4 years.

3)     The number of vaccines against coronaviruses, which are known since the 1960s = 0.

4)     Effectiveness of the common flu vaccine = 21%.

5)     You can inform yourselves about the ingredients of previous vaccines here and here.

6)     The number of previous vaccines developed by Moderna = 0.

7)     The total amount of fines for vaccine injuries paid out by Pfizer since 2000 = 5 billion $

And so on.

Unprecedented steps in the development of COVID vaccines:

1)     Mass-scale solicitation of funding for the large pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma) by way of a teleconference of world leaders (40 countries, not counting the US, which separately donated around 2 billion $) back in May 2020. Total sum collected during said conference = 8 billion $. NB: With a world population totaling about 7.8 billion people, we leave it up to the reader to calculate the size of potential COVID vaccine profits.

2)     Easing and acceleration of procedures regarding vaccine development and approval. Omission of the animal trial phase. Permission for company applications for final approval by the respective institutions (CDC in the US, EMA in the EU) while Phase 3 is still incomplete, that is, before the actual completion of vaccine development.

3)     Preliminary purchase of vaccines from all leading candidates – Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, Johnson & Johnson, etc. – months before final approval of any of them. Total number pre-purchased by the EU as of Dec. 21, 2020 = 1.3 billion doses.

4)     One-sided/non-transparent, therefore unverifiable/unprovable determination of the percentage of effectiveness of COVID vaccines by their own producers in a manner reminiscent of auction bidding: Pfizer started with 90%, Moderna raised the stakes to 94.5%, Pfizer corrected itself up to 95%; Astra-Zeneca began with the extremely inadequate 70%, but corrected itself up to 90%. (NB: Compare with Fact 4) above)

5)     The three leading vaccines are experimental, that is, without precedent in world history – mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) or adenovirus vector (Astra Zeneca). All of them essentially amount to gene therapy, with no one having any idea whatsoever about the possible consequences.

6)     Removal of any legal responsibility from the producers globally (in the US, it was removed back in 1986) on identification of side effects, be they short- or long-term, or damages to human health, be they temporary or permanent, including the death of COVID vaccinated people.

7)     Ongoing discussions of a system of pharmacovigilance, i.e. surveillance of the biological parameters of COVID vaccinated people over a period of 24 months by Google (US). The next step, already under intense deliberation, is the deployment of AI for “pre-diagnosеs” of sicknesses days or weeks before the human subjects become aware of being sick themselves for the purpose of timely administration of the respective medicines.

8)     A continuous, far-reaching campaign of agitation of the public about the need for mass-scale vaccination. Widespread condemnation and criminalization of the image of anti-vaccine activists within the framework of the newly ascendant societal model of “biosecurity” (see below). An official discussion of measures for combatting “vaccine hesitancy.” A marketing campaign to popularize COVID vaccines on the basis of purely psychological factors, including the recruitment of “stars” and other influencers with millions of followers, a certain first male vaccine recipient by the name of William Shakespeare in the UK, etc. in lieu of the provision of strictly scientific information (US, UK). Removal of all legal impediments to the open advertising of COVID vaccines on mass media (UK); payment of 12.58 pounds sterling directly to every GP for each administered COVID vaccine. Issuance of a paper card (wallet size) to each COVID vaccinated person (US).

9)     Placement of the military at the helm of vaccine development and administration (US, Canada, UK).

10)                        Alteration of the definition of “herd immunity” amounting to the removal of one’s acquisition of natural immunity in consequence of having overcome a certain disease by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the eve (Nov. 13, 2020) of the introduction of COVID vaccines. A measure such as this opens the door to mass-scale vaccination for each subsequent virus.

And so on.

Formally, COVID vaccines may remain voluntary, but what freedom of choice would people have, if access to employment, school, public transportation, shops, concerts, sports, restaurants, etc., as well as foreign travel depend on COVID passports? Let’s not kid ourselves, should passports for COVID vaccination be introduced, other vaccinations can be easily added. The virus will inevitably mutate, there may be other viruses too . . . Not to mention that in the US there are presently 276 vaccines (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) in various stages of development and, under the “new normal,” it will probably not be so hard to include many of them in the mandatory vaccination calendar after COVID. Ever wondered about the size of profits from a single vaccine in the mandatory vaccination calendar in the US for a single year? About 30 billion $. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how much money a popular morning program of a leading TV station in the US made for a single week from Big-Pharma ads already years ago? About half a million dollars.

Naturally, many players are trying to capitalize on the corona crisis (and many already have), but the largest and potentially dangerous scheme is publicly presented by Klaus Schwab (a student of Henry Kissinger, who is a student of William Elliot, all at Harvard) – founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF, allegedly “weforum” when in fact more like “theyforum”), which will convene virtually for its annual meeting next week. Once more, let’s pay close attention to words and slogans – „the Great Reset“, “the Fourth Industrial Revolution“ (check 9:57 on free thinking by Prof. Farahani, Duke U.), „Build Back Better” – recently spoken by politicians such as the prime ministers of the UK and Canada, as well as the new American President Joe Biden. It would be natural to expect that the first term means “Great Restart”, but Mr. Schwab rejects this interpretation on p. 121 of his book – “This [return to the old normal] will not happen, because it cannot happen.” – by the same name (plus, COVID), which came out in May 2020. To our mind, it might be better to think of it as “the Great Beginning [of a radically new system]” or “the Great Transformation.” In actuality, it would be more of a “Great Making of Have-Nots” (for the actual accompanying 2016 WEF video, recently taken off their webpage by themselves, click here), but let’s not jump ahead of ourselves. If you take a closer look at him, herr Schwab may remind you of Blofeld from SPECTRE (the James Bond movies). The problem is that he has many influential supporters, including, besides the ones mentioned above, philanthro-capitalists like Bill Gates, George Soros and the members of the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism, the Pope, Prince Charles, Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund, Antonio Guterres of the United Nations, the president of Маstercard and many others.

Behind the veil of specious terms such as ‘sustainability’ (think, centralized rationing), ‘inclusion’ (think, total dependence), and ‘equality’ (think, serfdom) lurk ideas of social engineering of the deepest kind and on the largest (global) scale. On WEF’s webpage, you can find all manner of excruciatingly detailed country-by-country “transformation maps,” which you can see with a free membership, including for education, and even propaganda for little children (check 2:00). In this vein, the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, recently publicly admitted that the coronavirus had only accelerated plans which had been in the making for years.

Hmm, let’s sketch in broad strokes the economic side of lockdowns, which have been going on, with some interruption for almost a year, with no end in sight . . . Let’s say that at the beginning it was not clear whether we could fight the virus in this way, but what was very clear on such a trajectory, and which inevitably happened (and keeps happening every day) was the annihilation of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of small and mid-size businesses of independent producers, the vast majority of which will never come back, and the resultant ruination of many tens of millions of people. Not by COVID, but by the governments. One has to agree that it all looks a lot like a controlled demolition of the world (especially, Western) economy. What we have here in plain sight is the removal of the economic independence of a large percentage of the population, which comprises the middle class, the backbone of Western democratic societies. It reminds one of the “saving of lives” from which many people died and continue to do so.

Meanwhile, quite predictably, the billionaires pulled ahead by about 2 trillion $ in just 6 months reaching a total net worth of 10.2 trillion $ (as of Oct. 2020). Jeff Bezos (183 billion $) of Amazon has a chance to become the world’s first trillionaire in the foreseeable future. If we combine this consolidation of economic activity with the accelerated automation of labor (both blue- and white-collar), already under way, which threatens 70% of the working population with unemployment, we reach “favorable” conditions for the new reforms (see below).

Let’s define two more keywords, which have been flying under the radar so far, but which everyone should know about – ‘technocracy’ and ‘transhumanism.’ The former is a new economic and social system of resource management and distribution by unelected “experts-technocrats” and their algorithms. Whereas this movement dates back to the 1930s, its platform was recently brought up to speed with the new technologies and possibilities of the 21^st century. The latter is a deliberate/artificially induced and permanent change of human nature, relationships, society, and all other human activities. Here is a quote from a Mr. Schwab speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, as well as (in several instances, in paraphrase) from his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016): “In the end, the fourth industrial revolution will lead to the fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities . . . “ This fusion of humans and machines is the center of focus for theoreticians such as Ray Kurzweil of Google (“the singularity”), companies such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink, etc.

Do you see where we are going with this? On the one hand, for the first time in the history of modern civilization, technologies for the full centralized control of the populace are available. Moreover, the foundations for a multibillion- (multitrillion-?) dollar technological infrastructure are being laid globally as we speak. Unlike the virus, it will be open-ended. On the other hand, there is zero transparency and public discussion about the needs, risks, nature, safety, parameters of application, and control, let alone the ethical side.

Hmm, is it possible that the corona period, regardless of its mysterious origins, may be used as a springboard [a period of initial psychological entrainment/conditioning of the masses] for life under the new, artificially created circumstances and passive/uncritical reception of the upcoming reforms? The introduction of a digital dollar/euro/yuan/yen, etc., the death of cash (officially, due to the virus; really, to remove any form of alternative, not to mention untraceable, payment), the introduction of universal basic income (UBI, in Finland and Germany trials are already underway) for all ordinary people (starting with the recently ruined) in exchange for enforced, uni-directional transparency and obedience (a system of social credits), a new “social contract”, a new social hierarchy . . . In China, for years now, if a person jay walks, the respective fine has already left their bank account before they even have enough time to get back home. An act like this leads to a loss of points. On falling below a certain level, a person cannot rent an apartment, get credit, board a train or a plane, etc. Such was the unfortunate state of about 10 million people in 2018.

Is it possible that the masks, social distancing, and physical isolation are not temporary? For example, children’s dolls wearing masks have been on sale for months, mannequins wearing masks can be seen gracing shop windows, new airport arrangements are also drawn up with masked people everywhere. Telework, tele-education, telemedicine . . .

Was the suppression of all positive emotions and socialized vent seeking since last year (bars, sports, concerts, cinema, theatre, church going and church singing, etc.) unintentional and inevitable, provided that ways of keeping a safe distance between people do exist? Is the new concept of “biosecurity,” according to which everyone is a potential culprit (bioterrorist), whether they realize it or not, coincidental or temporary? Does this weaponization of the human body justify in toto the strict, allegedly temporary, but very likely permanent measures along the axis – problem-reaction-solution?

Against the background of developments since last year, which definition of “humanity” seems more convincing – 1) a collection of free-willed personalities or 2) a faceless globally manageable resource?

Is it possible that the final (very ambitious, seemingly absurd) goal of certain influential circles (just ask yourselves who benefits (cui bono) and who is not subject to criticism) is the transformation of all horizontal human relations into vertical ones anchored in and centralized by the nascent global conglomerate, which can then drive a wedge between people and atomize them, removing all forms of personal space and alternative viewpoint?

What few realize is the connection between the four rising pillars of the present globalization: 1) large corporate media, 2) large high-technological companies (Big Tech), 3) large pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma) and 4) the prism “governments-central banks-military industrial complex.” Their full technological switch and coordination, in the absence of transparency and mechanisms for control by the citizens, will create perfect conditions for the rise of a global technocratic dictatorship, which, once in place, will be undefeatable. Totalitarianism (techno-feudalism?) of the purest variety.

The quickening (especially since last year) processes of weakening of horizontal (organic or secondary) connections between people (with family, relatives, friends, acquaintances) only push us closer to this sinister goal. In this vein, here are two recent examples from the US. 1) In October 2020, the D.C. Council passed a bill for vaccination of children as young as 11 without parental agreement, knowledge, or access to their records. 2) The governor of Vermont subjected all school children after Thanksgiving to a sort of inquiry as to whether their parents had kept holiday celebrations at home in line with the medical mandates. What do you think is the ethically “correct” answer in this case?

As you may have already guessed, so far the “Five Eyes” – the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (plus, notably, Ireland) – have suffered to the greatest extent from the unbridled medical fascism. Best organized not only in Europe, but in the entire world, have been the forces of civil resistance (a broad coalition of doctors, scientists, lawyers, politicians and ordinary people) in Germany. Recently, a French team produced a documentary, entitled “Hold-up,” which we have heard praise for, but have not yet watched (we are waiting for the subtitled version). Needless to say, it was taken off youtube and vimeo after only 2 days.

The game is getting rough. Brandy Vaughan, an anti-vaccination activist from California, a former Big Pharma (Merck) employee, and a mother of a vaccine-injured child, died under very suspicious circumstances on December 7, 2020, only a few days prior to the start of COVID vaccinations in the US, after a long-term suffering from aggressive stalking, anonymous threats, house break-ins/home security alarm tampering and extensive psychological harassment. This death can be added to the many dozens of mysterious deaths of holistic medics in the US over the past several years alone.

“Mr. Global” (the term was coined by Catherine Austin Fitts, the former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under George H.W. Bush) is playing “all-in” so there may yet be other unpleasant surprises – a cyberpandemic, disruptions of the internet, blackouts, disruptions of the food supply, and who knows what else . . . ?

In short: we have on our hands a pandemic not from COVID-19 (see also attached file and note 1 below), but from ubiquitous (moral, scientific, economic, etc.) corruption, power grabbing, ignorance, PCR tests (“casedemic”), fear, and an artificially fanned group hysteria. A pandemic, which, with the passage of time, looks more and more like a plandemic.

Keep in mind that there are fates worse than physical death. If we let things take their own course, in the end, we will be faced with the utter visibility, surveillability, taxability, and censurability of all human interactions forever. Sounds incredible? And yet how many things seemed incredible less than a year ago and still happened and keep happening? For the sake of our personal comfort today, we may lose our freedom tomorrow (or even today). Along these lines, it may be useful to review the example of the frog in the pot of water on the hotplate. If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out immediately and save itself. If, however, you put it in a pot of cold water, raising the temperature ever so slightly, it will not suspect anything until it is too late. Where is your line in the sand? What world do you want to live in? What world are we going to leave to the future generations?

What can we do for a new normal that suits us?

1. The first and easiest step is to secure the privacy of our personal information and internet searches. For example, we use Brave browser with swisscows and DuckDuckGo search engines, as well as a paid VPN provider (Surfshark) to shift GPS locations at will.
2. The second and much harder step, if one wishes to shake the stupor of the “Covidian Cult,” understand much better what is really going on, and what the “crème de la crème” have in store for us, is the total unplugging from all mainstream media. Most hyperlinks take you to the webpages of independent investigative journalists, many of whom have won awards for their labors, despite the risks, which have only grown larger lately, and despite their demonetization by youtube (most of them depend on voluntary donations). Upon individual inquiry, we can refer you to other names (including, comics) we respect. NB: If you wish to inquire further about any of these people, you might want to start with their own webpages and make up your own mind. Regrettably, in our experience, Wikipedia (on all controversial subjects and alternative viewpoints), most fact checkers, and skeptics websites engage in deliberate smear campaigning and are therefore thoroughly unreliable. The arts of mis- and disinformation are ancient and more advanced (newly enabled by technology) than most can imagine.
3. When so much is at stake, it may be a good idea to take active measures to overcome one’s virological illiteracy. We only got here thanks to our blind trust in “the experts.”
4. Regaining the right of free (especially, inconvenient) questions and insisting on a public examination and re-evaluation of the accumulated knowledge, the indirect methods for its procurement, and the effectiveness of the measures of contemporary virology. We will not bore you with the full list (entirely abrogated) of necessary steps for the clarification of the COVID case according to the protocol of standard science itself. We also have ideas for a side-look, which may reveal the root of the problem.
5. Organization of forums for public discussion for the purpose of clarification of all aspects of the COVID situation, followed by the attribution of legal responsibility to and penal consequences for the respective individuals and institutions.
6. Readiness for forms of civil disobedience, petitions, protests, etc.

We remain at your disposal for questions and ideas for concrete acts of solidarity aimed at the immediate cessation of all wrongful unscientific practices related to this entirely manufactured crisis, the crown jewel of the globalists. Only then can we proceed to activities, which 1) counteract “the shriekometer (Fitts)” of and the excessive polarization on social networks and corporate media, which amp up ego fragility/brittleness, conformism, victim mentality, and resignation among the people, and 2) encourage in their stead individual thinking and will, freedom of speech, unfeigned toleration of differences in opinion, as well as a strong sense of personal responsibility. Thereafter commences a more acceptable future.

If you wish, feel free to share this open letter with whoever you like. We will respond to all who write us back.

Finally, a couple of motivating thoughts:

• After Dante: The antechamber of hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintained neutrality.
• Ryan Cristian from The Last American Vagabond: “Question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.”

Note 1: The death rate among COVID infected people from the most vulnerable age group (above 70) is about 0.54%, whereas for the next group it is even lower (0.50%) or much, much lower (0.02-0.03%) for the rest, according to CDC data as of Sept. 23, 2020.

Happy New Year to you all!

Sincerely yours,

Bistra and Darin

December 21, 2020

 

 

Is Migrant crisis in Europe really under control?

Turkey deal may have stopped refugees from reaching France and UK but it has not resolved the crisis

Less than two years after the European Union was confronted with an unprecedented influx of refugees, during which over a million people from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond flooded Europe’s borders, EU officials are saying that the migrant crisis is under control. For this, the EU credits its March 2016 agreement with Turkey, which was intended to curb entries into Greece via the Mediterranean Sea and end onward movement into Europe across the western Balkan route. At the time, one European Commission senior policy official said the agreement, which stipulated that Greece send back to Turkey those migrants who do not apply for asylum or have their claim rejected, was seen as necessary to “ensure the future of the EU”, where the migrant situation had become “explosive”.

Just over a year later, crossings on the eastern Mediterranean have dropped from a weekly peak of 1,400 in early March 2016 to a weekly average of 27 for March 2017. The western Balkan path into Europe has seen a similarly significant decrease in crossings, from 764,000 in 2015 to 123,000 in 2016. Declarations of success have come despite criticisms by NGOs and experts, who have condemned the Turkey deal as an outsourcing of responsibility. This tactic may have stopped refugees from reaching France, Germany and the United Kingdom, at least temporarily, but it has not resolved the crisis at Europe’s borders.

Crossings of the central Mediterranean, which predominantly impact Italy, are actually on the rise, and the stalemate over relocation of refugees from Greece to Turkey, a key part of the 2016 deal, continues. A new report by the German think tank Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) shows that EU states along the western Balkan route are systematically – and violently – pushing back migrants. This route, which was at the forefront of the 2015 crisis, remains active, but it has slightly changed: movement has been redirected from Greece to Bulgaria’s land border with Turkey.

In 2016, 18,000 migrants crossed into Bulgaria. According to the FES report, Bulgaria, Hungary and Croatia have responded to the new influx by intensifying “efforts to prevent entry into their territory”. Hungary has further restricted its asylum legislation which “taken together with the physical push-backs, amount to the systematic violation of human rights” in the country, which already has the EU on edge with its ongoing crackdown on civil liberties. Attempts to forcibly close the borders in Hungary and Bulgaria have created a bottleneck in Serbia, where about 10,000 refugees and migrants are reported to be stuck. Border tightening across the western Balkan region has also led to an increase in the use of illicit smuggling networks, which is precisely the problem the EU claims it is seeking to tackle.

Meanwhile, the stalemate on relocation has left thousands of refugees trapped on the Greek islands. Thus far, only 1,000 people have been sent back to Turkey. With serious overcrowding and a lack of meaningful access to asylum procedures, the security situation in Greece is increasingly dire. The EU’s support for a possible agreement with Libya displays a lamentable lack of lesson-learning.

Italy had a similar deal with Libya in 2008, which collapsed with the Arab Spring. This directly contributed to the sharp rise in migration flows from 2011. Nor is the Turkey agreement the first time that the EU has tried to outsource responsibility.

The so-called Dublin Regulation, which from 2003 designated asylum responsibility to the country of entry, quickly became unsustainable, with Italy and Greece unable to tackle the massive influx. By turning a blind eye to the problems that the 2016 Turkey agreement is wreaking on Balkan states, the European Commission will again struggle to formulate a cohesive shared response to the ongoing migration crisis. As one European Parliament official stated, the tendency instead has been “to try and keep the problem out of the EU as much as possible so as to not have to deal with the situation.” But one European Commission policy official from the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs suggested in an interview that “containing the numbers through third country deals is a precondition” for all EU states to determine a common policy. Having “more predictable numbers”, she said, would give national governments the “breathing space” needed to sell voters on the need for a stronger, common approach to refugee arrivals.

But with the EU in a deadlock over the new Dublin negotiations, it is unclear whether member states can actually agree on a plan to effectively share responsibility in the continuing migrant crisis. Frontline member states are acutely concerned that the outcome of current talks may worsen the situation by further overburdening them. Inaction is not an option. Under international human rights law, European states are obliged to ensure safe and effective access to their territory for those fleeing persecution. It also has a legal mandate to find a solution: article 80 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union requires the bloc to pursue a common asylum policy grounded in the “principle of solidarity”.

The recent decision by the Commission to open sanction procedures against Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic for failing to comply with the relocation decision is a step in this direction. Confronting recalcitrant member states – perhaps by cutting off access to EU funding – the bloc can halt the current a la carte mentality that leads states to pick and choose when they share responsibility. Because, when it comes to Europe’s migration crisis, as one European Parliament member for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs put it, “either you get with the programme or you’re not in the club”.

New socialist president-elect throws Bulgaria in a new political crisis

As we have previously proposed, this puts Bulgaria back on the “Red Light of 25 Years of Communism…” as in 2013 and 2014.

A socialist general from the Bulgarian Air Forces took by surprise the recent presidential elections winning +60% of the vote. He has already declared his pro-Russian preference asserting Bulgaria may pull out from NATO and the European Union.

As soon as loosing the elections, the ruling political party resigned the government early Monday morning. Bulgaria’s constitution now demands that the president gives mandate to the opposing Socialist Party, who will reject it due to insufficient presence in Bulgaria’s Parliament. The president then returns a second mandate to the ruling party, which they claim will turn down promptly.

A temporary government is then to be formed by the President and current Parliament, as it was the case in 2013 and 2014. In term, the democrats will hope to win with majority the new parliamentarian elections in 2017, which will be the 11^th consecutive government elections in Bulgaria for the past 11 years since 2005:

2005 Parliamentary Elections
2006 Presidential Elections
2007 Municipal Elections
2009 Parliamentary Elections
2009 European Parliament elections
2011 Presidential Elections
2011 Local Elections
2013 Early parliamentary elections
2014 Early Parliamentary Elections
2015 Municipal Elections
2016 Presidential Elections

 

What does all this mean for the Church in Bulgaria?

Unstable political situation in Bulgaria with pro-Russian policies proposes a problem for the ministry of virtually all Protestants in the country. With a great probability to be voted in through a pro-Socialist government, a newly proposed legal measure bans any and all foreign organizations, companies and citizens from providing funding or donating to Bulgarian religious denominations. This would ban not only foreign physical and legal entities from funding Bulgarian religious institutions, but also companies with foreign ownership that are legally registered in Bulgaria. Using state funding for “illegal activities” by religious denominations will be sanctioned with prison terms of 3-6 years.

With these sanctions in mind, the new legal measure embodies the following rationale:

1. Churches and ministers must declare all foreign currency money flow and foreign bank accounts
2. Participation of foreign persons in the administration of any denomination is strictly forbidden
3. Foreign parsons shall not be allowed to speak at religious meetings in any way shape or form especially religious sermons
4. Anonymous donations and donorship to religious organization is not permitted
5. Bulgarian flag shall be present in every temple of worship
6. The new measure will block all foreign interference in the faith confessions and denominations in Bulgaria

Ukraine in Crisis: What’s happening?

PTS graduate Youry O. wrote us this morning:

S.O.S. Urgent Prayer request from Ukraine!
Dear friends! We ask you to take with us a heavy burden of prayer for our country, Ukraine and our family. As you may know from watching the news, for the last three months our country was struggling from protests and violent clashes between police forces and protesters who tried to overpower corrupt pro-Russian government in the country. There are more then a hundred people killed and tortured, thousands are wounded already. After the former president of Ukraine fled to Russia, the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, commanded its military forces to invade Crimea (Southern Ukraine), and now there is a serious threat that they will advance into all Eastern part of Ukraine where we live. People are frightened. Economy is staggering. If the conflict escalates on the international level it may even grow into a WWIII. We ask you to think that suddenly some else’s war may very soon consume all of the world. Please, ask your church, your friends and families to pray for safety of our family, for the peace in Ukraine, and for the peace to all of civilized humanity. We do not want our children to see the war in there homeland! Please, do not stand aside.

DECLARATION OF THE UKRAINIAN CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT THE FOREIGN AGGRESSION

• US Official Claims 6,000 Russian Troops In Complete Control Of Crimea
• Putin Requests Use of Russian Military in Ukraine
• Putin Hints That He May Not Stop at Crimea
• US suspends trade talks, military activities with Russia
• Rumsfeld: ‘It is US weakness that has shaken the world’
• Analysis: Kerry heads to Kiev with policy to counter Putin still evolving
• Crimea becomes flashpoint of Russia, Ukraine drama
• Ukraine fears hit world stock markets
• Ukraine’s UN ambassador vows: ‘We will succeed’
• READ: Ukraine’s letter to United Nations 

Who’s in charge of Ukraine?

• Russia’s take: Viktor Yanukovych remains Ukraine’s elected leader, and Ukraine’s new government is illegitimate. Russian United Nations envoy Vitaly Churkin called it an “armed takeover by radical extremists.”
• Ukraine’s take: Ukraine has a legitimate government and is set to have new presidential elections on May 25. “Let’s give an opportunity for that to work,” Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.N. Yuriy Sergeyev said.
• United States’ take: Yanukovych abandoned his post last month, fled the country and was then voted out of office by Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament.

How many Russian troops are inside Ukraine?

• Russia’s take: Russia hasn’t said how many troops it’s sent into Ukraine.
• Ukraine’s take: Russia has sent military ships, helicopters and cargo planes to deploy 16,000 troops into Crimea since February 24, Sergeyev told the United Nations on Monday.
• United States’ take: Russian forces “have complete operational control of the Crimean peninsula,” a senior U.S. administration official told CNN on Sunday, with estimates of 6,000 Russian ground and naval forces in the region

Do Russian troops have a right to be in Crimea?

• Russia’s take: Yes. A treaty between the neighboring nations allows Russia to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea, Russia’s U.N. envoy said Monday, adding that Yanukovych requested that Russia send military forces.
• Ukraine’s take: No. Russian troops amassing in Crimea and near the border with Ukraine are an “act of aggression.”
• United States’ take: No, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing a dangerous game. The consequences of military action “could be devastating,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said Monday.

Why is the tense standoff unfolding now?

• Russia’s take: Russia has said its parliament approved Putin’s use of military force to protect Russian citizens in the Crimean peninsula.
• Ukraine’s take: There’s no evidence of any threat to Russians inside Ukraine. Russia wants to annex Crimea.
• United States’ take: Russia is responding to its own historic sensitivities about Ukraine, Crimea and their place in Moscow’s sphere of influence, a senior White House official told CNN Monday. Russia fears that Ukraine is falling under European or Western influence, the official said.

Leadership Crisis in Bulgaria

As Bulgaria is celebrating its Liberation Day on March 3rd, protests are still going on in most major Bulgarian cities. Neither the resignation of the Prime Minister and the leading party from the government amidst deepening economics crises, nor the appointment of a new patriarch to the Orthodox Church was able to calm the crowds who have been out in the streets for weeks now. General government elections are scheduled for May 12, 2013 while the President is working with parliament on forming an interim government.

After the last election some four years ago, political analysts working closely with our ministerial team warned that if newly elected government continues to use the same local level (city, municipality) political paradigms to run the country as a member of the European Union, crises will be inevitable.  This was obvious even to the social concern grassroots including our chaplaincy program and para-church ministries.

Two years later, as half of the parliamentarian term has passed, we further advised in “Election’s Perspectives for Bulgaria” that as Bulgaria’s Prime Minister elect did not take the much expected place as a presidential candidate, his political strategy has been strongly criticized by his opponents as inadequate and insufficient to answer Bulgaria’s current crises. Amidst the global economic collapse, it was reasonable to suggest that similar socioeconomic shifts will not be long before appearing in Bulgaria.

The year 2013 began with a political distress in one of Bulgaria’s ethnic parties through a “backstage” attack against their soon to resign leader. The opposition responded immediately releasing a secret dossier code named “Buddha” revealing the Prime Minister working as a secret agent for the communist government police. His resignation, along with the resignation of the whole Cabinet, followed less than two weeks later as protests swept the streets of Bulgaria in the month with lowest temperatures, highest electric bills and of course highest rate of the government disapproval.

Meanwhile, after almost entering Bulgaria’s parliament in 1997, the Bulgarian Christian Coalition, traditionally representing the Protestants in the country, remains on the borderline of any political existence. Bulgarian evangelicals were never able to reach their political legacy again, although the new Bulgarian census showed over 25% increase of evangelical population in Bulgaria to some 65,000 people strong. The alternative party, Christian Democratic Forum has showed no political activity since it was established a decade later and quickly defeated by having less than 1,000 votes nationwide. The Bulgarian Christian Coalition has also chosen not to run in the upcoming elections.

Bulgarian Orthodoxy in Crisis

July 25, 2004: Bulgaria should not allow religion and policy to be mixed, Parliamentary Speaker Ognyan Gerdhzikov said. In an interview for the private bTV channel Gerzdhikov said the new law used as a base for the July 21 church raids was voted in 2002 aiming to overcome the schism of the Bulgarian Church. Last Wednesday police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests in a controversial raid to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Gerdzhikov pointed out that the Prosecutor’s order for the raid was legal, underlining, however, that the measures taken were not proper. The problem following the schism of the Bulgarian Church has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime.

July 24, 2004: Current arguments in the Bulgarian Church are due to real estate ownership according to Justice Minister Anton Stankov. Stankov explained that the police actions were legal. On July 21 police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests in a controversial raid to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The problem following the schism of the Bulgarian Church has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime.

July 23, 2004: The Supreme Cassation Court initiated legal proceedings against the so-called Alternative Synod of Inokentiy. One of the charges is illegal possession of property. The case has been referred to the National Security Service. Meanwhile, Inkentiy and priests from his synod demanded the resignation of chief prosecutor Nikola Filchev because of his interference in church activities. The priests met with MPs. However, no MPs from the National Movement Simeon II (NMSII) and from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) attended the meeting. Inokentiy said that he struggled for the churches, not for the church properties. Bulgarian ex PM and leader of Democrats for Strong Bulgaria Ivan Kostov read a declaration of the United Democratic Forces saying that some Bulgarian state institutions violate basic human rights and freedoms. MP from the NMSII Borislav Ralchev tried to deny the attacks against the Government saying that the issue was not about state interference in the church activities. “There is no alternative synod. There is just one synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church”, leader of the parliamentary faction of the New Time Miroslav Sevlievski said. The church, the Holy Synod and Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim have to decide on the solution of the problem, BSP MP Tatyana Doncheva said.

July 22, 2004: Priests from the dissident clergy headed by Metropolitan Inokentii served a mass in font of the Saint Sofia church in Bulgaria’s capital. The holy men protest against yesterday’s controversial police raids to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Later on Thursday representatives of the dissident clergy headed by Metropolitan Inokentii met with MPs from all Parliamentary Groups except for the Bulgarian socialists. The holy men urged for the resignation of Bulgaria’s Chief Prosecutor Nikola Filchev. Police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests Wednesday. The problem following the schism of Bulgarian Church has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime.

July 21, 2004: Bulgarian policemen scuffle with a priest as they detain him Wednesday at St Parashkeva church in Sofia July. Police tried to force dissident clergy from 18 local churches in an escalating schism in Bulgarian Orthodox community. Police stormed through 250 churches countrywide and detained many priests Wednesday in a controversial raid to restore proprietorship of official Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The problem following the schism of Bulgarian Church, dating three years ago, has established two Orthodox community centers, one headed by Patriarch Maxim and the other claiming he had been “appointed” by ex-communist regime. In Sofia alone, priests were forcefully dragged out of 18 churches alongside present laypeople. The dissident clergy headed by Father Inokentii is determined to stay vigil in front of their churches until allowed back into them. arises.